Football is the people’s sport, full of passion, intensity, and – often – disagreements.
Football is the people’s sport, full of passion, intensity, and – often – disagreements.
Football is the people’s sport, full of passion, intensity, and – often – disagreements.
None of those disagreements has caused as much noise in recent years as the introduction of the Video Assistant Referee, better known as VAR. A technological innovation that promised fairness, accuracy, and transparency, but was met with intense skepticism and, often… anger.
The Promise of VAR
The Promise of VAR
When VAR was officially introduced at the 2018 World Cup, FIFA spoke of a new era in football. The system was created to correct "clear and obvious" referee mistakes in four main categories:
- Goals
- Penalties
- Direct red cards
- Mistaken identity of players
The idea was simple: a team of referees monitors the action through video and notifies the match referee in case of a mistake. The final decision still belongs to the “man in the middle,” but now with more information at his disposal.
Implementation and First Impressions
Implementation and First Impressions
At first, the new technology was welcomed with enthusiasm. Many believed that the “surgical mistakes” that decided titles and relegations would be a thing of the past. But reality proved to be more complex. VAR did not eliminate controversy – it merely shifted the focus of the debate.
Instead of arguing about mistakes made on the pitch, we now argue about delays, offside lines decided by millimeters, and the subjectivity of handballs or penalties. And the backlash wasn’t far behind.
Controversial Moments
Controversial Moments
Let’s recall a few examples that sparked intense reactions:
- Euro 2020 – England vs Denmark: The penalty awarded to Sterling in the semifinal caused an uproar. While there was contact, many thought it was “soft.” VAR upheld the decision, and debate raged on.
- Premier League 2020–21: Goals were disallowed for offside because a player’s... shoulder was a few centimeters ahead. VAR’s accuracy came under scrutiny – especially when it relied on "virtual lines."
- Super League – Greece: The Greek version of VAR came with delays, poor communication, and – often – technical glitches. Many decisions were made incorrectly or after long pauses, fueling frustration and distrust among fans.
The Paradox of Perfection
The Paradox of Perfection
Football has always included “human error.” Referees were never perfect, but their mistakes were considered part of the game. With technology now involved, the public expects perfection – something that turned out to be impossible.
This creates a paradox in communication: the more “perfect” a decision appears through technology, the less tolerable any mistake becomes. When VAR doesn’t intervene, everyone yells “why not?” When it does, teams on the receiving end shout about “disruption of the flow.”
Human judgment… at the core
Human judgment… at the core
The real issue isn’t VAR itself, but who uses it and how. Video provides data, not judgment. The final decision lies with people – and the interpretation of a phase still varies.
A challenge that one referee deems “clean” might be seen as “dangerous” by another. And the worst part? The public often has no access to the reasoning behind decisions, unlike in other sports like the NFL, where the referee explains each ruling via microphone.
The disruption of flow
The disruption of flow
One of the most frustrating aspects of VAR is the long delays. Many players and coaches have complained that it “kills” the rhythm of the game, disorients teams, and removes the natural flow of the match.
Celebrations after goals have changed. Nowadays, players and fans can’t rejoice spontaneously – they have to… wait for VAR first. This alters the emotion of the game, which is a core part of football’s passion.
How it could be improved
How it could be improved
VAR is here to stay. The goal isn’t to abolish it, but to improve it. Some internationally discussed suggestions include:
- Introducing audible explanations of decisions, like in rugby or the NFL, for greater transparency.
- Imposing time limits on each review – e.g., 60 seconds – to avoid overuse.
- Establishing a “coach’s challenge” system, allowing teams to request VAR reviews only a limited number of times.
- Training referees and standardizing protocols to reduce subjectivity.
So, Technology or Disaster?
So, Technology or Disaster?
VAR is neither completely good nor entirely bad. It’s a tool. Like any tool, it depends on how it's used. When applied correctly, it safeguards the integrity of the game. When misused, it causes more problems than it solves.
Football is a game rooted in passion, spontaneity, and action. Technology should not sterilize it – it should serve it. And that is the challenge for the years ahead.
